In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100367/2019(MV) CLUBBED WITH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104049/2018 IN M.F.A.NO.100367/2019 BETWEEN : SMT.VENKAVVA D/O.STAYAVVA MEGERI @ MEGARI @ MYAGERI, AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O.H.NO.314, KAMAKERI, TQ : RAMDURG, DIST : BELAGAVI NOW RESIDING AT SULEBHAVI, TQ. & DIST- BELAGAVI-590 013. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. SHRI KISTAPPA S/O.RANGAVVA JALIGIDAD, AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O.A/P. KAMAKERI, TQ : RAMDURG, DIST : BELAGAVI-591118. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, : 2 : THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT 2 ND FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING, 1732, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. ..... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1-SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.2937 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN M.F.A.NO.104049/2018 BETWEEN : NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2 ND FLOOR, PRABHU BUILDING, 1732, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY I.E., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND : 1. VENKAVVA D/O.STAYAVVA MEGERI @ MEGARI @ MYAGERI, AGE : 30 YEARS, : 3 : OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O.H.NO.314, KAMAKERI, TQ : RAMDURG, DIST : BELAGAVI NOW RESIDING AT SULEBHAVI, TALUK AND DISTRICT- BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI KISTAPPA S/O.RANGAVVA JALIGIDAD, AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, R/O.A/P. KAMAKERI, TQ : RAMDURG, DIST : BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF HERO HG DELUX MOTORCYCLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-24/V-1608) ..... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1-SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AND PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.09.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T., BELAGAVI, IN M.V.C.NO.2937 OF 2016 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- : 4 : JUDGMENT These two appeals arise from the Judgment and Award dated 04.09.2018 made in M.V.C.No.2937 of 2016 by the Court of IV Additional DistriCt and Sessions Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Belagavi. 2. M.F.A.No.100367 of 2019 has been filed by the Claimant seeking enhanCement of the Compensation awarded while M.F.A.No.104049 of 2018 has been filed by the insurer on the ground that Compensation awarded is exCessive. The liability of the insurer is admitted. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Claimant and the learned Counsel for the insurer. 4. The undisputed faCts of the Case are that on 16.10.2016 Smt Satyavva Kalloleppa Mergeri who is the mother of the Claimant was proCeeding on a motorCyCle bearing registration No.KA-24/V-1608 as a pillion rider from Kamakeri towards Yallammangudda and one Suresh Mudiyappa KolaChi was the rider of the bike. When the : 5 : motorCyCle reaChed near Padmandi village, due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorCyCle, Satyavva fell down from the motorCyCle and suffered grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Civil Hospital at Belagavi, where she suCCumbed to the injuries during the Course of treatment. The Claimant who is her daughter has filed the instant Claim petition Claiming Compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- with interest before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in all has awarded a Compensation of Rs.11,34,180/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the quantum of Compensation awarded, both the Claimant as well as the insurer are in appeal before this Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the Claimant submits that the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependenCy inCluding future prospeCts is on the lower side. He also submits that the Tribunal has not granted any Compensation towards loss of love and affeCtion. Therefore, : 6 : he prays for allowing the appeal by enhanCing the Compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal has erred in not applying split multiplier as the deCeased who was aged about 53 years, had only another 07 years of serviCe. He also submits that the Claimant who is the daughter of the deCeased was not a dependant on the deCeased as she had her own earnings. He therefore prays that the Compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be reduCed. 7. We have Carefully Considered the rival Contentions and also perused the material evidenCe available on reCord. 8. Admittedly, the deCeased-Satyavva was working as a sweeper in Hosakoti Gram PanChayat. Her inCome at Rs.12,870/- per month has been taken into Consideration by the Tribunal on the basis of her salary slip. Having regard to her age, 15% of her aCtual salary has been inCluded towards future prospeCts. While Considering grant of Compensation towards loss of dependenCy, the proper : 7 : appliCable multiplier would be 11 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.11,04,180/- towards loss of dependenCy. However, it is seen that the Tribunal has not granted any Compensation towards loss of love and affeCtion. The Claimant who is the daughter of the deCeased is unmarried and therefore, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is granted to the Claimant towards of loss of love and affeCtion. 9. The Contention of insurer that the Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier beCause the deCeased had only 07 years of serviCe left does not merit Consideration in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court in the Case of Smt.Ravikala and Others Vs. B.Jayaprakash and Others in M.F.A.No.4474 of 2013(MV) disposed off on 26.08.2020 . 10. The other Contention of the insurer that the Claimant was not dependent upon deCeased-Satyavva should also fail in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. : 8 : Birender and Ors. , Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 with Civil Appeal No.244 of 2020 , wherein it is held as under : “15. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deCeased have a right to apply for Compensation. Having said that, it must neCessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deCeased being legal representatives have a right to apply for Compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to Consider the appliCation irrespeCtive of the faCt whether the ConCerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deCeased and not to limit the Claim towards Conventional heads only.” 11. Therefore, the appeal filed by the insurer does not merit Consideration and aCCordingly the same is dismissed. The appeal filed by the Claimant is partly allowed . The Claimant is entitled for additional Compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. : 9 : The insurer is direCted to deposit the Compensation amount with interest within a period of two months from the date of reCeipt of a Copy of this order. The terms with regard to deposit and disbursement shall be as per the order of the Tribunal. The amount in deposit made in M.F.A.No.104049 of 2018 is ordered to be transmitted to the ConCerned Tribunal. [Sd/-] JUDGE [Sd/-] JUDGE Ckk .